What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4900312 about?

The tribunal order states: Guava Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,720.44

How much money was awarded in case 4900312?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4900312?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4900312?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10753640-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4900312 about?

The tribunal order states: Guava Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,720.44

How much money was awarded in case 4900312?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4900312?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4900312?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10753640-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

34 Castlerea Street, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4900312 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

34 Castlerea Street, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4900312 — Exemplary damages | TenantCheck

Order

Guava Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,720.44 immediately in accordance with the following table:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Narayan represented the landlord.
[The tenant/s] has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for various alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by the landlord over this short 1 tenancy.
The landlord has cross applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The background to this matter is that [The tenant/s] accepted this tenancy without viewing the property. She obtained the keys the day the previous tenants were vacating and as soon as she entered, encountered issues. Rubbish was left and the property was unclean.
She discussed the matter immediately with the landlord and a $100 rent rebate was provided.
She subsequently experienced issues with mould, draughts, heating and other maintenance. On 22 May the landlord’s tradesman and son attended but minimal work was attended to.
[The tenant/s] mother’s partner arranged a Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) report which was undertaken on 27 May. The report noted the following: a. Gas non-flued heater illegal. b. Heat pump not currently being used. Tenant did not want me to run it on due to dust etc going into the house. Would assume it works. c. Unreasonable gaps larger than 3mm. some of the gaps would not have been found under a normal Healthy Homes Assessment, tenant point them out behind the stove. d. The bathroom fan is not externally ducted. e. Signs of dampness and water running underneath the house. Recommend ground moisture barrier but its not a requirement under the HHS. f. Fireplace is uncompliant and needs to be blocked off.
Because her and her son were getting ill, when she received the report [The tenant/s] handed in notice to end the tenancy and it ended by agreement on 16 June.
I discuss each claim separately bearing in mind the evidential burden of proof which is on each applicant for their own claims and that is the balance of probabilities, or what is more likely than not. Independent witnesses, 1 5 weeks corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
Whilst not all evidence tendered is referred to in this decision, both parties can be assured it has all been considered. Tenant’s claims

Has the landlord breached s45 of the RTA?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA to: (a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. (c) comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety including the HHS.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA. Cleaning
There is no dispute that the previous tenants had not left the property clean and tidy when they vacated. 2 Because [The tenant/s] took possession the same day the landlord says they had no time to clean in-between tenancies. He says they remedied the issue by providing a $100 rent rebate and [The tenant/s] had agreed to take on the property in any state given her desire for a property quickly.
Mr Narayan agrees rubbish was left and they were going to remove it, but the tenancy ended too abruptly. He says that [The tenant/s] had rushed the start of the tenancy and had not come for an inspection prior to taking the tenancy. She was therefore given the first two weeks of the tenancy to advise of any issues which he said they would remedy.
[The tenant/s] says she did not rush the start of the tenancy but was offered the keys the day before she was due to start the tenancy.
Regardless as to how a tenancy is formed, there is a positive obligation in section 45(1) of the RTA for a landlord to provide a property reasonably clean, 2 In breach of section 40(1)(e)of the RTA tidy and in reasonable state of repair. Pursuant to section 11(3) of the RTA, a tenant cannot contract out of this right.
The landlord did breach section 45(1) of the RTA however I find that [The tenant/s] was compensated for the lack of cleaning to her satisfaction by the rent rebate. The rubbish should have been removed by the landlord when notified. I discuss exemplary damages below. Broken windows
[The tenant/s] says several windows had broken latches and there was a crack in one window. None of these issues were resolved during her tenure.
Mr Narayan says he contacted a window repairer immediately upon notification to repair however he could not come until a week prior to the end of the tenancy. He says it is very difficult to get a trade at the moment.
[The tenant/s] noted the broken window latches in her email the night before the tenancy commenced on 5 May. This issue had also been notified by the landlord’s HHS report in August the preceding year but not rectified. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the landlord has breached section 45(1)(b) of the RTA by providing windows in poor repair.
With respect to compliance with the HHS draught stopping standard, the landlord had 120 days from the start of the tenancy to comply. As the tenancy did not go on for 120 days, the landlord cannot be said to have breached the HHS.
I address monetary awards for the breach of section 45(1)(b) of the RTA below. Dishwasher
It is not disputed that the dishwasher did not work. [The tenant/s] says she expected one as it was in the photos sent to her of the property before she took the tenancy. Mr Narayan says he told her the dishwasher and insinkerator did not come with the tenancy although accepts he told her this after the tenancy had commenced. He commissioned a plumber however he did not attend in time for the tenancy.
I accept [The tenant/s] evidence given she asked for the dishwasher to be repaired on 5 May. There are no chattels listed in the tenancy agreement.
It is not acceptable to advertise a property with certain chattels and then to advise after the tenancy commences that they are not included. If a chattel such as a dishwasher is to be in a property when it is rented out, it is to be included in the tenancy unless expressly excluded in the agreement.
This was not investigated for two weeks after notification and not repaired during the tenancy. This is a breach of section 45 although I accept the landlord was working on the issue. I discuss awards below. Power points
[The tenant/s] evidence is that there were faulty power points in the laundry and bedroom and points with intermittent faults in the hallway and second bedroom. The one in the laundry did not work at all and it was the only one to plug in her washing machine. She has provided a photo of the plug in the laundry that appears burnt and has a crack through it.
Mr Narayan said that as this was urgent, he told her to arrange an electrician and they would pay or said they would get one of their own. [The tenant/s] disputes this evidence. He also says he was only told about the issue with the point in the laundry, not the others.
After considering the evidence I am satisfied that the landlord was only advised of the laundry plug when the trade attended on 22 May and were starting to look into it when the tenancy was terminated by [The tenant/s]. It was urgent given its smell of burning and that it was the only power point in the laundry. This should have been immediately investigated by the landlord as it is their obligation to do so, an obligation they cannot shirk but having the tenant arrange the trade.
I discuss monetary orders below. Heating
[The tenant/s] evidence is that the heating was insufficient. The heat pump was covered in black dust and dirty and there is an unlawful un-flued gas heater in the lounge. Her understanding is that this heater has been a main contributor to her families illnesses.
She says she showed the landlord’s son the heat pump at his visit, and he offered to clean it but by then she was fed up with their inefficiencies and declined the offer. She says that her son had to go and live with her mother from about 30 May to protect his health.
The HHS report she obtained advised them that the gas heater was unlawful and so she stopped using it. It also notes that they were not able to inspect it as she did not want them using it. [The tenant/s] says the house was extremely cold.
Mr Narayan says he was not told about the issues with the gas heater until [The tenant/s] HHS report came in. He says they had their own HHS report commissioned in August 2023 which did not raise the issue and he is unaware of anyone having concerns with it previously.
The August 2023 HHS report states the following: i. The heating is compliant. ii. The insulation is compliant. iii. The kitchen requires a rangehood. iv. The bathroom extractor fan is not working. v. A ground moisture barrier is required. vi. The gutters need repairs. vii. Some windows and doors require attention to prevent moisture ingress and draughts. viii. There are gaps between the bottoms of doors and the floor (creating a draught).
Mr Narayan says that in response to the report they fixed the windows and gutters and installed the kitchen extractor fan.
He says they tried to clean the heat pump but were prevented in their work by [The tenant/s].
I accept on the evidence that the landlord was not aware of the status of the gas heater as it should have been raised in their HHS report. They are on notice now and accordingly it should be attended to. I also find that the landlord is not in breach of section 45 with respect to the heat pump as they offered to clean it but were not provided the opportunity and there is no evidence that it does not work. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Draughts
[The tenant/s] says she felt extensive draughts in the home and in the kitchen particularly. She raised it with Mr Narayan who ostensibly told her to find their source and advise him. She pulled out the dishwasher and oven and found holes in the walls. The HHS report confirmed other unreasonable draughts.
Mr Narayan says they had not been made aware of the wall holes prior and their HHS assessor had obviously missed them. He says they looked at it and were in the process of deciding how to resolve it when [The tenant/s] gave notice, after cancelling their work for 27 May. They did not try to do any further work as she was allegedly abusive on the phone after she had given notice.
The August HHS report clearly notes unreasonable draughts which needed to be attended to.
The HHS draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. This home is not, however the issue had been notified and was being worked on. As the landlord had 120 days from the commencement of the tenancy to deal with this issue, this is not a breach of section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA. Mould
When [The tenant/s] moved in she noticed extensive mould in a wardrobe. The photos show mould on both sides of the wallpaper in the wardrobe which was clearly evident. She notified the landlord of this on the 5 th of May.
When the trade attended, he painted over it. [The tenant/s] says he told her that the property was in a bad state, and she should move out. Mr Narayan disputes the likelihood of the trade making such comments.
Mr Narayan says they did attend upon notification and treated the mould and then painted over it which was sufficient.
I am satisfied that the landlord did investigate when advised within a reasonable time frame. However, the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 specify the minimum standards of fitness for houses which include a requirement that every house be free from dampness (regulation 15). This house does not appear to be. The mould would have been seen had the landlord inspected the property before commencing this tenancy. Accordingly, this is a breach of s45(1)(c) RTA.
As an aside I note that the home is not compliant with the HHS ventilation standard which requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity. The property will need to be compliant within 120 days of the commencement of the next tenancy or 1 July 2025, whichever comes sooner. Gas leak
When [The tenant/s] gas company came to check her supply, they noticed a leak. They fixed it but she would like a refund for the gas that she paid for that was lost during the leak.
Mr Narayan says he knew nothing about the gas leak. I accept this evidence and do not find the claim substantiated in evidence.

Should monetary orders be made?

[The tenant/s] seeks the following compensation: i. Reimbursement of the cost of $217.35 she had to pay for a HHS report. ii. $3,000 of unspecified compensation.
I do not consider it appropriate that the landlord reimburse [The tenant/s] the cost of obtaining her HHS report. This is for the reason that she had not requested their HHS compliance documents before she obtained her own. Further, the landlord was addressing her concerns, albeit slowly, before she commissioned the report.
It is a well-accepted principle when awarding damages that, so far as money can do it, the injured party shall be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement/RTA. The other compensation is not specified; accordingly [The tenant/s] financial losses are not clear.
Further, as a matter of law, a tenant is not entitled to compensation for losses which, had they taken steps to mitigate, they would not have suffered. 3 If a landlord was not carrying out repairs in a timely way, I would expect a tenant within a reasonable time to: (i)serve a 14 day notice to remedy the breach on the landlord, (ii)arrange for the repairs to be done and for the landlords to reimburse them the cost of the repairs (if the repairs were urgent), (iii)or apply to the Tenancy Tribunal for a work order and compensation if the landlords failed to comply with the 14 day breach of duty notice.
[The tenant/s] did not take this course of action here, preferring to move out. Whilst I understand her reasoning, the law does not permit her to be compensated for a situation the landlord could have addressed but was not given reasonable opportunity to.
The evidence does establish that [The tenant/s] had a lack of amenity with respect to the dishwasher and wardrobe. The rest of the property she could use as contracted for. I award $200 compensation for these deficiencies.
I have found that the landlord has committed the following unlawful acts: i. Section 45(1) of the RTA by failing to provide the property reasonably clean and tidy. ii. Section 45(1)(b) of the RTA by failing to provide the windows reasonably maintained, a functioning dishwasher, a faulty power point and a property with mould in it. 3 Section 49 RTA
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord is an experienced property management company currently running 15 tenancies. Accordingly, I am satisfied these breaches were caused intentionally as the landlord was aware of their obligations under the law or should have been.
In an assessment of exemplary damages, I take into account the following: a. I do not consider the landlord malicious in their failings here, more lackadaisical. They were required to ensure their property was meeting the legal requirements before it was tenanted but did not. b. The effect on [The tenant/s] has been serious. She has had to move to another home quickly and her and her son’s health has suffered. c. [The tenant/s] did not allow the landlord much time to respond to her concerns. They did not send someone out for two weeks after her first notification however when they did, they commenced working through her list. They should have been out earlier, but two weeks is not a particularly unreasonable amount of time. d. This tenancy was extremely short. e. It is in the public interest that landlords comply with their obligations under the RTA and ensure that homes they provide are warm, dry and healthy.
Having assessed all of the evidence as above, I am satisfied that a collective award of $1,500 exemplary damages is appropriate and just. Landlord’s claims

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy was to end on 27 June by the original notice [The tenant/s] provided. She then emailed on 30 May asking to bring the end date forward to the 16 th . This was agreed to by Mr Narayan by saying we are happy to end your tenancy on 16 th June as requested. However several days after during negotiations between the parties he agreed to not charge her rent until the 27 th of June if she withdrew Tribunal proceedings. As the proceedings were not withdrawn he seeks rent until the 27 th of June.
I am satisfied that Mr Narayan had agreed to end the tenancy on the 16 th by the wording of his email. The end of a tenancy brings with it the end of rental obligations for a tenant. This was not a case of an agreement to move out prior to an end date, the wording is clear that the end of the tenancy was agreed to.
Accordingly, I do not find the claim for [The tenant/s] to be responsible for rent until 27 June justified and so it is dismissed.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations?

Mr Narayan claims compensation for having lost other good tenants and having to re-tenant the property earlier than anticipated. Specifically: a. $249 towards unintended advertising. b. $150 to new tenant administration costs. c. $1,602.73 for the last rent between the two tenancies.
He is of the view that [The tenant/s] used their property as a temporary home in order to find a better property. He considers that she took this tenancy intending to only use it temporarily and with the intent to try and obtain financial advantage through the use of the Tribunal.
He says they were trying to help her find a property and chose her over other suitable candidates because they had a personal connection with her mother’s partner. I accept this submission but it does not detract from legal obligations.
[The tenant/s] disputes this and says she wanted to live at this property because it is so close to her mother upon whom she relies heavily on. She says she had no intention of leaving so quickly but felt she had no choice given how sick they were getting.
This claim is not proven. The home was deficient, as discussed above. Whilst [The tenant/s] should have inspected it, this does not detract from the landlord’s obligations. It is nonsensical for a tenant to take on moving costs more than they need to, especially with children. Accordingly, these claims are dismissed.

Should suppression be granted?

Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion if in the public interest.
[The tenant/s] was successful to an extent, accordingly I approve her claim for suppression. The landlord was not, therefore their details must be published.
For the same reasons I approve [The tenant/s] application for reimbursement of the filing fee, but not the landlord’s.

Order

Guava Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,720.44 immediately in accordance with the following table:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Narayan represented the landlord.
[The tenant/s] has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for various alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by the landlord over this short 1 tenancy.
The landlord has cross applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The background to this matter is that [The tenant/s] accepted this tenancy without viewing the property. She obtained the keys the day the previous tenants were vacating and as soon as she entered, encountered issues. Rubbish was left and the property was unclean.
She discussed the matter immediately with the landlord and a $100 rent rebate was provided.
She subsequently experienced issues with mould, draughts, heating and other maintenance. On 22 May the landlord’s tradesman and son attended but minimal work was attended to.
[The tenant/s] mother’s partner arranged a Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) report which was undertaken on 27 May. The report noted the following: a. Gas non-flued heater illegal. b. Heat pump not currently being used. Tenant did not want me to run it on due to dust etc going into the house. Would assume it works. c. Unreasonable gaps larger than 3mm. some of the gaps would not have been found under a normal Healthy Homes Assessment, tenant point them out behind the stove. d. The bathroom fan is not externally ducted. e. Signs of dampness and water running underneath the house. Recommend ground moisture barrier but its not a requirement under the HHS. f. Fireplace is uncompliant and needs to be blocked off.
Because her and her son were getting ill, when she received the report [The tenant/s] handed in notice to end the tenancy and it ended by agreement on 16 June.
I discuss each claim separately bearing in mind the evidential burden of proof which is on each applicant for their own claims and that is the balance of probabilities, or what is more likely than not. Independent witnesses, 1 5 weeks corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
Whilst not all evidence tendered is referred to in this decision, both parties can be assured it has all been considered. Tenant’s claims

Has the landlord breached s45 of the RTA?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA to: (a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. (c) comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety including the HHS.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA. Cleaning
There is no dispute that the previous tenants had not left the property clean and tidy when they vacated. 2 Because [The tenant/s] took possession the same day the landlord says they had no time to clean in-between tenancies. He says they remedied the issue by providing a $100 rent rebate and [The tenant/s] had agreed to take on the property in any state given her desire for a property quickly.
Mr Narayan agrees rubbish was left and they were going to remove it, but the tenancy ended too abruptly. He says that [The tenant/s] had rushed the start of the tenancy and had not come for an inspection prior to taking the tenancy. She was therefore given the first two weeks of the tenancy to advise of any issues which he said they would remedy.
[The tenant/s] says she did not rush the start of the tenancy but was offered the keys the day before she was due to start the tenancy.
Regardless as to how a tenancy is formed, there is a positive obligation in section 45(1) of the RTA for a landlord to provide a property reasonably clean, 2 In breach of section 40(1)(e)of the RTA tidy and in reasonable state of repair. Pursuant to section 11(3) of the RTA, a tenant cannot contract out of this right.
The landlord did breach section 45(1) of the RTA however I find that [The tenant/s] was compensated for the lack of cleaning to her satisfaction by the rent rebate. The rubbish should have been removed by the landlord when notified. I discuss exemplary damages below. Broken windows
[The tenant/s] says several windows had broken latches and there was a crack in one window. None of these issues were resolved during her tenure.
Mr Narayan says he contacted a window repairer immediately upon notification to repair however he could not come until a week prior to the end of the tenancy. He says it is very difficult to get a trade at the moment.
[The tenant/s] noted the broken window latches in her email the night before the tenancy commenced on 5 May. This issue had also been notified by the landlord’s HHS report in August the preceding year but not rectified. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the landlord has breached section 45(1)(b) of the RTA by providing windows in poor repair.
With respect to compliance with the HHS draught stopping standard, the landlord had 120 days from the start of the tenancy to comply. As the tenancy did not go on for 120 days, the landlord cannot be said to have breached the HHS.
I address monetary awards for the breach of section 45(1)(b) of the RTA below. Dishwasher
It is not disputed that the dishwasher did not work. [The tenant/s] says she expected one as it was in the photos sent to her of the property before she took the tenancy. Mr Narayan says he told her the dishwasher and insinkerator did not come with the tenancy although accepts he told her this after the tenancy had commenced. He commissioned a plumber however he did not attend in time for the tenancy.
I accept [The tenant/s] evidence given she asked for the dishwasher to be repaired on 5 May. There are no chattels listed in the tenancy agreement.
It is not acceptable to advertise a property with certain chattels and then to advise after the tenancy commences that they are not included. If a chattel such as a dishwasher is to be in a property when it is rented out, it is to be included in the tenancy unless expressly excluded in the agreement.
This was not investigated for two weeks after notification and not repaired during the tenancy. This is a breach of section 45 although I accept the landlord was working on the issue. I discuss awards below. Power points
[The tenant/s] evidence is that there were faulty power points in the laundry and bedroom and points with intermittent faults in the hallway and second bedroom. The one in the laundry did not work at all and it was the only one to plug in her washing machine. She has provided a photo of the plug in the laundry that appears burnt and has a crack through it.
Mr Narayan said that as this was urgent, he told her to arrange an electrician and they would pay or said they would get one of their own. [The tenant/s] disputes this evidence. He also says he was only told about the issue with the point in the laundry, not the others.
After considering the evidence I am satisfied that the landlord was only advised of the laundry plug when the trade attended on 22 May and were starting to look into it when the tenancy was terminated by [The tenant/s]. It was urgent given its smell of burning and that it was the only power point in the laundry. This should have been immediately investigated by the landlord as it is their obligation to do so, an obligation they cannot shirk but having the tenant arrange the trade.
I discuss monetary orders below. Heating
[The tenant/s] evidence is that the heating was insufficient. The heat pump was covered in black dust and dirty and there is an unlawful un-flued gas heater in the lounge. Her understanding is that this heater has been a main contributor to her families illnesses.
She says she showed the landlord’s son the heat pump at his visit, and he offered to clean it but by then she was fed up with their inefficiencies and declined the offer. She says that her son had to go and live with her mother from about 30 May to protect his health.
The HHS report she obtained advised them that the gas heater was unlawful and so she stopped using it. It also notes that they were not able to inspect it as she did not want them using it. [The tenant/s] says the house was extremely cold.
Mr Narayan says he was not told about the issues with the gas heater until [The tenant/s] HHS report came in. He says they had their own HHS report commissioned in August 2023 which did not raise the issue and he is unaware of anyone having concerns with it previously.
The August 2023 HHS report states the following: i. The heating is compliant. ii. The insulation is compliant. iii. The kitchen requires a rangehood. iv. The bathroom extractor fan is not working. v. A ground moisture barrier is required. vi. The gutters need repairs. vii. Some windows and doors require attention to prevent moisture ingress and draughts. viii. There are gaps between the bottoms of doors and the floor (creating a draught).
Mr Narayan says that in response to the report they fixed the windows and gutters and installed the kitchen extractor fan.
He says they tried to clean the heat pump but were prevented in their work by [The tenant/s].
I accept on the evidence that the landlord was not aware of the status of the gas heater as it should have been raised in their HHS report. They are on notice now and accordingly it should be attended to. I also find that the landlord is not in breach of section 45 with respect to the heat pump as they offered to clean it but were not provided the opportunity and there is no evidence that it does not work. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Draughts
[The tenant/s] says she felt extensive draughts in the home and in the kitchen particularly. She raised it with Mr Narayan who ostensibly told her to find their source and advise him. She pulled out the dishwasher and oven and found holes in the walls. The HHS report confirmed other unreasonable draughts.
Mr Narayan says they had not been made aware of the wall holes prior and their HHS assessor had obviously missed them. He says they looked at it and were in the process of deciding how to resolve it when [The tenant/s] gave notice, after cancelling their work for 27 May. They did not try to do any further work as she was allegedly abusive on the phone after she had given notice.
The August HHS report clearly notes unreasonable draughts which needed to be attended to.
The HHS draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. This home is not, however the issue had been notified and was being worked on. As the landlord had 120 days from the commencement of the tenancy to deal with this issue, this is not a breach of section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA. Mould
When [The tenant/s] moved in she noticed extensive mould in a wardrobe. The photos show mould on both sides of the wallpaper in the wardrobe which was clearly evident. She notified the landlord of this on the 5 th of May.
When the trade attended, he painted over it. [The tenant/s] says he told her that the property was in a bad state, and she should move out. Mr Narayan disputes the likelihood of the trade making such comments.
Mr Narayan says they did attend upon notification and treated the mould and then painted over it which was sufficient.
I am satisfied that the landlord did investigate when advised within a reasonable time frame. However, the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 specify the minimum standards of fitness for houses which include a requirement that every house be free from dampness (regulation 15). This house does not appear to be. The mould would have been seen had the landlord inspected the property before commencing this tenancy. Accordingly, this is a breach of s45(1)(c) RTA.
As an aside I note that the home is not compliant with the HHS ventilation standard which requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity. The property will need to be compliant within 120 days of the commencement of the next tenancy or 1 July 2025, whichever comes sooner. Gas leak
When [The tenant/s] gas company came to check her supply, they noticed a leak. They fixed it but she would like a refund for the gas that she paid for that was lost during the leak.
Mr Narayan says he knew nothing about the gas leak. I accept this evidence and do not find the claim substantiated in evidence.

Should monetary orders be made?

[The tenant/s] seeks the following compensation: i. Reimbursement of the cost of $217.35 she had to pay for a HHS report. ii. $3,000 of unspecified compensation.
I do not consider it appropriate that the landlord reimburse [The tenant/s] the cost of obtaining her HHS report. This is for the reason that she had not requested their HHS compliance documents before she obtained her own. Further, the landlord was addressing her concerns, albeit slowly, before she commissioned the report.
It is a well-accepted principle when awarding damages that, so far as money can do it, the injured party shall be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement/RTA. The other compensation is not specified; accordingly [The tenant/s] financial losses are not clear.
Further, as a matter of law, a tenant is not entitled to compensation for losses which, had they taken steps to mitigate, they would not have suffered. 3 If a landlord was not carrying out repairs in a timely way, I would expect a tenant within a reasonable time to: (i)serve a 14 day notice to remedy the breach on the landlord, (ii)arrange for the repairs to be done and for the landlords to reimburse them the cost of the repairs (if the repairs were urgent), (iii)or apply to the Tenancy Tribunal for a work order and compensation if the landlords failed to comply with the 14 day breach of duty notice.
[The tenant/s] did not take this course of action here, preferring to move out. Whilst I understand her reasoning, the law does not permit her to be compensated for a situation the landlord could have addressed but was not given reasonable opportunity to.
The evidence does establish that [The tenant/s] had a lack of amenity with respect to the dishwasher and wardrobe. The rest of the property she could use as contracted for. I award $200 compensation for these deficiencies.
I have found that the landlord has committed the following unlawful acts: i. Section 45(1) of the RTA by failing to provide the property reasonably clean and tidy. ii. Section 45(1)(b) of the RTA by failing to provide the windows reasonably maintained, a functioning dishwasher, a faulty power point and a property with mould in it. 3 Section 49 RTA
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord is an experienced property management company currently running 15 tenancies. Accordingly, I am satisfied these breaches were caused intentionally as the landlord was aware of their obligations under the law or should have been.
In an assessment of exemplary damages, I take into account the following: a. I do not consider the landlord malicious in their failings here, more lackadaisical. They were required to ensure their property was meeting the legal requirements before it was tenanted but did not. b. The effect on [The tenant/s] has been serious. She has had to move to another home quickly and her and her son’s health has suffered. c. [The tenant/s] did not allow the landlord much time to respond to her concerns. They did not send someone out for two weeks after her first notification however when they did, they commenced working through her list. They should have been out earlier, but two weeks is not a particularly unreasonable amount of time. d. This tenancy was extremely short. e. It is in the public interest that landlords comply with their obligations under the RTA and ensure that homes they provide are warm, dry and healthy.
Having assessed all of the evidence as above, I am satisfied that a collective award of $1,500 exemplary damages is appropriate and just. Landlord’s claims

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy was to end on 27 June by the original notice [The tenant/s] provided. She then emailed on 30 May asking to bring the end date forward to the 16 th . This was agreed to by Mr Narayan by saying we are happy to end your tenancy on 16 th June as requested. However several days after during negotiations between the parties he agreed to not charge her rent until the 27 th of June if she withdrew Tribunal proceedings. As the proceedings were not withdrawn he seeks rent until the 27 th of June.
I am satisfied that Mr Narayan had agreed to end the tenancy on the 16 th by the wording of his email. The end of a tenancy brings with it the end of rental obligations for a tenant. This was not a case of an agreement to move out prior to an end date, the wording is clear that the end of the tenancy was agreed to.
Accordingly, I do not find the claim for [The tenant/s] to be responsible for rent until 27 June justified and so it is dismissed.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations?

Mr Narayan claims compensation for having lost other good tenants and having to re-tenant the property earlier than anticipated. Specifically: a. $249 towards unintended advertising. b. $150 to new tenant administration costs. c. $1,602.73 for the last rent between the two tenancies.
He is of the view that [The tenant/s] used their property as a temporary home in order to find a better property. He considers that she took this tenancy intending to only use it temporarily and with the intent to try and obtain financial advantage through the use of the Tribunal.
He says they were trying to help her find a property and chose her over other suitable candidates because they had a personal connection with her mother’s partner. I accept this submission but it does not detract from legal obligations.
[The tenant/s] disputes this and says she wanted to live at this property because it is so close to her mother upon whom she relies heavily on. She says she had no intention of leaving so quickly but felt she had no choice given how sick they were getting.
This claim is not proven. The home was deficient, as discussed above. Whilst [The tenant/s] should have inspected it, this does not detract from the landlord’s obligations. It is nonsensical for a tenant to take on moving costs more than they need to, especially with children. Accordingly, these claims are dismissed.

Should suppression be granted?

Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion if in the public interest.
[The tenant/s] was successful to an extent, accordingly I approve her claim for suppression. The landlord was not, therefore their details must be published.
For the same reasons I approve [The tenant/s] application for reimbursement of the filing fee, but not the landlord’s.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4900312 — Exemplary damages at 34 Castlerea Street, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014

Tenancy Tribunal case 4900312 — Exemplary damages at 34 Castlerea Street, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord breached s45 of the RTA?

Should monetary orders be made?

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations?

Should suppression be granted?

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord breached s45 of the RTA?

Should monetary orders be made?

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations?

Should suppression be granted?